Next In The Ring: Ferraro vs. Wright

I believe I have succeeded fairly well in my pledge to not attack Barack Obama personally. I have attacked his positions, his campaign claims and some personality characteristics (chiefly what I see as insulting arrogance) that I find unappealing. But, I have tried to stay away from personal slurs or attacks on his personal life or family (although I did call Michelle Obama a bitch, and I'll stick by that one. I've called Hillary Clinton a bitch too, in her defense.) I believe that Barack Obama has deeply felt and sincere personal convictions and I applaud him for those. I also believe that he has worked hard in his career to do what he feels is right, and has been the champion of many worthy political moments.

So there are no surprises, I'll give something away up front: Yes, I am about to defend Geraldine Ferraro. If you read this, examine my claims and my rationale, and read it without the "My Preferred Candidate Filter," and still disagree with me, fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as Ferraro has dramatically pointed out by saying, "I’m exercising my First Amendment rights. If they don’t like it, tough." [SOURCE] I believe the First Amendment is taking a front seat in the race argument that Ferraro brought to the forefront. Certainly Rev. Wright is quite aware of those rights and exercises them with zeal.

What I find ironic is that there is no direct link between Ferraro and Wright, and yet the two are now inexorably related. What I find further and more ironic, is that Wright's blatant anti-white racism is what turned the tide on justifying Ferraro, who claims she is being attacked because she is white. As I have not gone to Rev. Wright's church personally, and certainly never with Barack Obama, I have no idea if he did or did not hear these sentiments, as he claims. Downplaying Wright is pretty much the only way Obama can go on this. Straight up denouncing him would be very ugly for all kinds of reasons. But, obviously, he also has to distance himself from such inflammatory behavior.

I believe the core issue here is religion, not race. The fact that Wright's style of ministry is in essence Black Evangelism makes race the visual focus. I do not agree. I think the question Wright has our subconscious stewing on is, "Can we elect a president whose religion is radical in some way?" As far as the GOP goes, Mitt Romney had some pretty good ideas, but in the end his religion was the deal breaker. Religious convictions give us broad stroke ideas about a person's character. When religious convictions are used to portray a presidential candidate positively, there is ample justification for seeing the details.

It is hard to imagine Barack Obama was unaware of Wright's beliefs. Obama has attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by him, his children were baptized by Wright, and he cites the Reverend as the inspiration for a book title. Wright was a member of Obama's campaign committee, and as early as June 2007, the campaign was doing damage control on Wright's potential impact. Unfortunately, the Democratic campaign tried so hard to keep race and gender out of it, that it is now the only place left to go. If Wright had never had an official place on the campaign staff to begin with, it would be a lot easier to downplay Wright's importance to Obama.

I don't want to demonize Wright. His preaching style is iconic, and he clearly cares very deeply for his congregation and for the well being of the African American community. The text of his "Audacity of Hope" sermon is really quite moving. Also, I agree with Wright about a few things. I don't think his social commentary is all that far off the mark, although his rabid honkey-hating does irritate. However, I do think on March 12th, only 4 days ago, Wright crossed the line by focusing his anti-white sermonizing against Hillary Clinton. There is no way Wright did not know what he was doing. He is a very intelligent man who has been directing the moral convictions of a large religious community for multiple decades. He also leveled a biting attack on Bill Clinton, claiming, "Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” [SOURCE] Like him or not, claiming that Bill Clinton was not good for African Americans is pretty hard to justify. He came out swinging for minorities in general and African Americans were some of Clinton's most devoted constituents. This was very clearly a calculated attack by Wright.

The question is, how much do we hold Obama accountable for Wright? Hillary Clinton was immediately called to kick Ferraro off the campaign bus, and a failure to do so was spun as a "campaign killer." Geraldine Ferraro is not Clinton's chief religious adviser, and her role in the Clinton campaign was minor. Honestly, Ferraro is a dinosaur who represents one of the worst Democratic defeats in recent history. Her presence in the campaign at all was chiefly symbolic -- she was a woman on a presidential ballot. Wright, on the other hand, represented a major part of Obama's image, which was propelled into the limelight by the need for reassurances that Obama was not secretly Muslim. Obviously, Obama is not Muslim. Obviously he is a Christian, has a respectable / acceptable moral code. But, if Obama is going to put Wright forward as, "an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with," [SOURCE] we also rightly should ask, "So what do you agree with?" Obviously Wright's "damn the white man" sentiments aren't enough for Obama to quit going to church. So, we are faced with a presidential candidate who had said Ferraro's racist remarks should be ignored, but has as a role model a minister who regularly sermonizes race politics.

Race is a deciding issue in this campaign, like it or not. Geraldine Ferraro was certainly unrefined in pointing it out, but she's not wrong. Gender is a deciding factor, too. I find any claims that blacks are not voting for Obama because he's black and women are not voting for Clinton because she's a woman to be ludicrous. I don't think they are the biggest deciding factors, although I do believe they are the cause of it all. A political campaign whose historic significance is based solely on the race and gender of the presumed winners cannot exclude these factors in the outcome. Both Obama and Clinton will be cast as "champions" of their respective minorities. Obama represents post-race America, where we can have a black president at all. Clinton represents post-war of the sexes, where we can have a woman president at all. The irony is that either of them is challenged to seem like they have eclipsed their minority rather than avenged it. Wright is certainly casting Obama as an avenger, and has probably hurt Obama by putting him on a razor edge. He can't risk being seen as Afro-centric, but he also can't alienate the black vote by denouncing his church and what has long been a popular sentiment in Black Evangelism: damn the white man. This is a pretty unfair position to put anyone in, and it has got to sting, coming from the home front.

Unfortunately, because Obama jumped on Clinton to denounce Ferraro, Obama now has to answer the same questions about Wright. Clinton has smartly distanced herself from the Wright situation all together. This is something for Obama to sort out, it is personal to him, and it is not something the Clinton campaign is going to use as fodder. Of course people are implying Clinton is leaving it alone because it doesn't need any help to explode. I think this is a nasty and divisive argument. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Clinton. Obviously, she is not going to get involved. There are so many reasons not to, and so many land mines if she does, it would be foolish to do anything but stay mute. No doubt, it is helping Clinton's image overall. She can't be blamed for it any more than Obama can be blamed for benefiting from Clinton-damaging scandals. While Clinton's response to Ferraro's comments was labeled as tepid, she did indicate first and most strongly that, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal." [SOURCE]. Both candidates have started to advocate for laying off each other. I think this is the only encouraging sign in what is becoming a lurid and cutting campaign on both sides.